BigBallinStalin wrote:Um... what kind of military action are you talking about?

well, probably any action is action, but I suppose some could argue we should go in there and get Gaddafi, other might argue we should provide boots on the ground to support rebels, it could be naval bombardment of palaces.

Obama could order a pre-emptive strike, like a 72 hour thing. What if Gaddafi goes WMD? I know anything can happen but I hate waiting until after it happens to talk about it.

Oh, so nothing was officially said on behalf of the US regarding military action in Libya?

If so, just cut off supplies to the current Libyan government, using rhetoric side with the uprising which will most likely win, and see what happens. In the civilian controlled cities, the WSJ was reporting that the oil was still flowing through... so if that remains the case, then let it be.

The US and England are moving forces in to create a no-fly zone over parts/all of Libya. This much is almost sure to happen in the next week or so. I am not sure what much else we can do, we really don't have the troops available to put boots on the ground.

Personally, I think that Scotland should take the lead in all this. Let them enforce a no-fly zone and put "peacekeepers" in there. After all, they have to protect their oil contracts they got for releasing that Libyan Pan-Am bomber terrorists bastard....

BigBallinStalin wrote:If so, just cut off supplies to the current Libyan government, using rhetoric side with the uprising which will most likely win, and see what happens. In the civilian controlled cities, the WSJ was reporting that the oil was still flowing through... so if that remains the case, then let it be.

Phatscotty wrote:I don't think this will turn out how a lot of people think it might....

Let's see

I'm curious what you were expecting.

Phatscotty wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Um... what kind of military action are you talking about?

well, probably any action is action, but I suppose some could argue we should go in there and get Gaddafi, other might argue we should provide boots on the ground to support rebels, it could be naval bombardment of palaces.

Obama could order a pre-emptive strike, like a 72 hour thing. What if Gaddafi goes WMD? I know anything can happen but I hate waiting until after it happens to talk about it.

On the one hand, the US is in no condition economically to support another war. Even if it were, what business does it have there? They've been burning American flags and saying the US is the "great satan" for years. There's no reason for a pre-emptive strike, since it's no threat to any other nation (except for the civil unrest spreading, which could be a good thing in any neighboring, repressive nations). When the populace of a nation rise up and overthrow their dictator on their own, then the responsibility of their actions rests solely with them. It forces those citizens to cooperate if it is going to succeed, which makes that cooperation and interdependence much more likely to continue when the time comes to set up the succeeding government. Also, what about every other nation which is experiencing civil unrest due to repressive leadership? If the US steps in here, why not in Egypt, Tunisia, or any other nation in the future? When do you stop? And why stop at a no-fly zone? May as well send in troops. I don't know, it's tough to avoid a slipperly slope on the issue.

On the other hand, I could support a no-fly zone implemented by a few nations (why should the US bear the brunt of the cost? Let some other nations step in a shoulder their part of the load). A no-fly zone would end some of the worst atrocities going on there and would make a massive uprising much more possible for any civilians desiring greater freedom.

P.S. I voted "no," since I don't believe this is mainly the US' responsibility. I'm curious to hear Saxi's conspiracy theory on this uprising and how it was all organized by the US, Jews, and global elite lol

P.P.S. On another side note, if it was justified and a moral imperative for the US to invade Iraq and oust Saddam because of the atrocities he committed, then it is justified and a moral imperative to do the same in Libya now (leaving the issue of WMDs to the side for the moment, since that hasn't been an issue in Libya for quite some time now, and many question if it even was one of the original reasons for invading Iraq--besides as a cover story).

P.P.P.S. IMHO Obama has done a terrible job on foreign relations and policy which is where, ironically, he was expected to shine.

P.P.P.P.S. Michael J. Totten, an independent reporter on the Middle East, wrote an interesting account of his trip there a couple of years ago. If you're interested in getting a feel for what the civilians were saying (or couldn't say) about Qaddafi and even just one man's description of what it's like over there, I would recommend it.

qwert wrote:these is funny,again americans hurry to attack someone who dont attack america. These is not nato or american war. What if some american soldier die? Who will be responsibile?

This isn't just about attacking people for the hell of it.

Gaddafi is gearing up to kill as many of his own people as he can. He doesn't care anymore. He's lost $30bn in frozen assets, so he's got nothing to lose.

He has some portions of his military under his direct command, and he's moving into position to strike his rebelling cities. There's going to be immense civilian casualties, and if you were in a position to stop such senseless killing, would you?

The US in this situation wants to stop him, but the top shots are limiting their actions for now. The US has moved the 6th fleet from Italy to nearby Libya and Tunisia, and they've denied Gaddafi control of his own air space. Why? So he can't bomb his own civilians and destroy his people's oil facilities.

Phatscotty wrote:I don't think this will turn out how a lot of people think it might....

Let's see

I'm curious what you were expecting.

Phatscotty wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Um... what kind of military action are you talking about?

well, probably any action is action, but I suppose some could argue we should go in there and get Gaddafi, other might argue we should provide boots on the ground to support rebels, it could be naval bombardment of palaces.

Obama could order a pre-emptive strike, like a 72 hour thing. What if Gaddafi goes WMD? I know anything can happen but I hate waiting until after it happens to talk about it.

On the one hand, the US is in no condition economically to support another war. Even if it were, what business does it have there? They've been burning American flags and saying the US is the "great satan" for years. There's no reason for a pre-emptive strike, since it's no threat to any other nation (except for the civil unrest spreading, which could be a good thing in any neighboring, repressive nations). When the populace of a nation rise up and overthrow their dictator on their own, then the responsibility of their actions rests solely with them. It forces those citizens to cooperate if it is going to succeed, which makes that cooperation and interdependence much more likely to continue when the time comes to set up the succeeding government. Also, what about every other nation which is experiencing civil unrest due to repressive leadership? If the US steps in here, why not in Egypt, Tunisia, or any other nation in the future? When do you stop? And why stop at a no-fly zone? May as well send in troops. I don't know, it's tough to avoid a slipperly slope on the issue.

In Tunisia, the king left without much of a fight. In Libya, Gaddafi is fighting to the death. Big difference. He doesn't give a shit, and he'll use whatever means he can to maintain control, even if it means destroying the oil facilities in the east to undermine those rebel cities' power. He'll even use his tanks and artillery to crash into rebel cities and kill many civilians.

If you could stop such an evil dictator from killing his own civilians, then why not act on the moral imperative? Granted, there are diminishing returns for more resource-intensive military actions, but what the US is doing now is acceptable.

However, another interesting thing to note is that the US government really shouldn't be involved in any of this. I don't see why the US shouldn't scale down it's military budget, and let mercenary groups be hired by organizations (that the US deems acceptable) who are willing to throw down enough cash to stop Gaddafi.

"bigbalinstalin-This isn't just about attacking people for the hell of it.

Gaddafi is gearing up to kill as many of his own people as he can. He doesn't care anymore. He's lost $30bn in frozen assets, so he's got nothing to lose.

He has some portions of his military under his direct command, and he's moving into position to strike his rebelling cities. There's going to be immense civilian casualties, and if you were in a position to stop such senseless killing, would you?

The US in this situation wants to stop him, but the top shots are limiting their actions for now. The US has moved the 6th fleet from Italy to nearby Libya and Tunisia, and they've denied Gaddafi control of his own air space. Why? So he can't bomb his own civilians and destroy his people's oil facilities."

How many time ,the history repeating. North Corea-Vietnam-Iraq-Afghanistan-Iran-Libya.Ofcourse if US have 18 year old soldier who ready to die,in some coutries who are not thread for US, then its ok by me. Do you belive,that if US send troops, war will be over? Do you belive that in iraq war are over? What abouth Afghanistan? or Pakistan. And iran.But this time its a little diferent, US want to try to involve other NAto members to participiate, but its look that they not want to send soldier into something what its not hes business. Im not in danger,and probably you are not in danger to, but young boys who are going to be in these crap, will be in danger to die, and for what? If you are comanding officer,what will you tell to familiy of soldier who die in libya " He die for American freedom" or what?

Last edited by Qwert on Wed Mar 02, 2011 9:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

qwert wrote:There's going to be immense civilian casualties, and if you were in a position to stop such senseless killing, would you?

Would you, qwert? I'm not sure you answered your own question.

qwert did not ask that question, BigBallinStalin did. qwert quoted one of BigBallinStalin's posts that contained that line in his post but he got the format of the quote slightly off. You then made the mistake of attributing the contents of that quote to qwert.

qwert wrote:There's going to be immense civilian casualties, and if you were in a position to stop such senseless killing, would you?

Would you, qwert? I'm not sure you answered your own question.

qwert did not ask that question, BigBallinStalin did. qwert quoted one of BigBallinStalin's posts that contained that line in his post but he got the format of the quote slightly off. You then made the mistake of attributing the contents of that quote to qwert.